IAmNick

If the boss has specifically picked every employee over a four year period, and then also specifically picked the 11 people to carry out his instructions on the day (presumably the ones who he thinks will carry out his instructions most effectively) then I would say primarily his, personally. Either he has picked wrong people to do the job, or given the right people the wrong instructions that they can't carry out. I suppose the employees could just be completely incapable of doing so - but we know that's not true.

Wont be watching (or posting clips) today I'm afraid as I've got a load of decorating to do! COYR

Probably against the grain, but I thought he was poor today. First half especially it showed him to be far more one footed than I remembered - they stopped him from being able to pass on his left up the line and he repeatedly looked like he didn't know what to do and in turn Eliasson with one or two men tight on him saw very little of the ball. I don't know what sparked his run (or two) up field nearer the end of the game, but that's much more how I remembered him.

Fair - At some point it sounds like people support Lee Johnson, not Bristol City.

You think stating someone else might have us placed better is moronic, un-thought out, snide, vendetta fuelled drivel? What? That doesn't sound like a ridiculous thing to say whether you are pro or anti LJ to me. It's entirely possible another manager might have us placed better. What a bizarre comment.

Around 7:40

Well exactly, which is why net spend it isn't a great metric because the further you extend it over time the less meaning it then has, as the values aren't representative! Fulham also loaned in £40m of talent this summer even though they "spent" £0m according to their transfer balance sheet - wages another matter however!

Ok lets do that, so this summer? According to transfermarkt in the summer we made £8.61m on transfers, certainly not too shabby. However teams above us: WBA made £11.6m Leeds made £29.96m(!) Brentford made £10.85m Fulham made £25.65m(!) Swansea made £34.5m(!!)... so all those teams in your "net spend" league table should be massively struggling compared to us, having had to sell all their quality right? Wigan however, spent £7.13m, so according to you they should be flying high! When does your "net spend" table start and stop? Do we take into account wages etc? It just doesn't make sense, and isn't a good metric. You just like to use it as justification for Lee spending a hell of a lot of money.

Absolutely - but they have the same net spend which you said was the "only true picture", even though they now have very different squads . Clearly that's not the case though, it's much more nuanced than that. It's funny how the only "true" measure always seems to be the only one that lines up with that persons argument

Why is it? That makes no sense at all. Take two clubs. They both buy a player for £2m. Club A's player does amazingly, and goes at the end of the season for £30m which they invest back in the team. Club B's player does ok, and goes for £1m. They invest in another £2m player. Club A's net spend: -£2m (-£2m + £30m when he's sold, -£30m on new players). Club B's net spend: -£3m (-£2m + £1m when he's sold, - £2m on a new player). So your argument is Club B are in a better position because of their net spend (more investment?!) - even though Club A now have a squad with £30m of investment? Not to mention that investment in our players (Kelly, for example) is on potential - £20m on him != £20m of quality removed from our squad. It just doesn't work like that.

If anyone wants the videos I post for Twitter or whatever feel free to just ask and I'll send them - no need to record your screen!

Personally I think it was because Jack Grealish is clearly racist.

I think it's a decent idea, but the fact we're looking at a "magic bullet" solution to the issues is just showing there's a much larger problem. We've been saying the same thing once each player returns from injury, once we try x formation, once we've got these couple of games out the way etc. that things will be different - and it's not really working so far. I feel the problems run deeper than just happening upon a winning formula by moving a single player, or a slight change to formation. The fact we can't string 3 passes together and don't seem to know how to go forwards with the ball are unlikely to change I think, unfortunately. I know your post is much more considered than that so I'm not having a go, it's just a bit of a trend on here at the moment I've noticed!

Decent analogy... But a better driver could still probably outrun my mate in his Merc... Provided the car he was given ticked all the boxes he'd asked for even if it was a Nissan.

Maybe I'm not understanding, but it still sounds like it's down to Lee ultimately, so why do you say hold Ashton responsible? You say Lee's not responsible for the shortlist but if he chooses what he wants, characteristics, position, can suggest players himself, and makes the ultimate decision... Then it sounds like he is to me. If he keeps saying a 5ft 5 midfielder who can't pass more than 10 yards that's not Ashton's fault If your argument is there may be a better 'D' out there we mistakenly passed on, well that goes for everyone. Managers have scouts who present shortlists and names too don't they so they don't have to do the whole lot themselves? How do you know this out of interest?